[MCARC] [Fwd: Re: January 2018 ARRL Board meeting]

[Nate Bargmann]

Rod's reply to me.

73, Nate

----- Forwarded message from Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome at gmail.com> -----

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:23:53 -0600
From: Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome at gmail.com>
To: Nate Bargmann <n0nb at n0nb.us>
Cc: "Rod Blocksome, K0DAS" <k0das at arrl.org>, "Art Zygielbaum, K0AIZ" <k0aiz at arrl.org>
Subject: Re: January 2018 ARRL Board meeting

Hi Nate,

Thanks for taking the time to write with your concerns.  I just arrived in
CT and have some preparation for the PSC meeting tomorrow so this will be a
little short.

I am not in favor of changing the voting structure of the board.  It should
stay with only the 15 director directors.  There really should never be a
tie as the current bylaws provide that the Vice-Director assumes the role
of Director if the director is unable to attend a board meeting.

The proposed motions on articles and bylaw changes that have been
circulating are not motions until they are made after the board officially
convenes.  I can't predict how this will turn out but rest assured I will
work to restore member confidence in the board and improve transparency of
the board actions.

73's,
Rod, K0DAS

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Nate Bargmann <n0nb at n0nb.us> wrote:

> Hi, Rod.
>
> As I'm sure you are well aware, much information has been circulating
> online about what are thought to be proposed changes to the ARRL
> Articles of Association and its bylaws.  To be honest, while I have
> given them a cursory look, I am unsure of which of the proposed changes
> will strengthen the League or result in less transparency to League
> members and the amateur radio community at large.
>
> I am concerned that one of the proposed changes that may be presented is
> to give the president and the vice-presidents voting power at Board
> meetings.  I do not think this change would be wise.  As I see it, the
> president should only be able to cast a vote to break a tie since only
> Board members are elected by the membership.
>
> I realize time is quite short before the January meeting and that this
> message may come at a time when you are traveling.  The reason I have
> waited is that I have been trying to sort out the signal from the noise
> for the past couple of weeks.
>
> Next month I will celebrate 35 years as a continuous member of ARRL.  In
> my opinion, the ARRL will do well to be more transparent in its
> operations, decision making process that affects League members and
> non-members alike, and the process by which the leadership considers and
> submits proposed rules changes to the FCC.  Over those 35 years I do not
> recall one time ever receiving some sort of questionnaire about
> important issues/proposals.  I have contacted various directors
> unsolicited over the years, as I am doing today, to express my thoughts
> on various matters.
>
> Also, I was quite disappointed by the recent letter posted by ARRL
> president Rick, K5UR.  I thought that much more could have been said,
> instead it came off to me as complaining that bad people were saying bad
> things about ARRL and that we should just put blind faith in ARRL
> leadership.  I hope that I am just getting cynical in my old age and
> completely misinterpreted Rick's letter.
>
> Thanks for reading, Rod.
>
> 73, Nate, N0NB
>
> --
>
> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
> possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
>
> Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
>

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us